The Persecutor-Victim-Rescuer roles are commonly played out by individuals, but I am also interested in how they play out at a societal and global level. Please consider the following two examples with me.
The UK welfare benefits system
In stereotypical terms, the UK Labour Party leans towards being Rescuers, wanting to support the poor people (in both senses of that word!), while the Conservative Party leans towards being Persecutors of those 'idle scroungers'. Those on benefits may choose to play the Victim role (or not).
But both main political parties are both playing the same P-V-R game. After we have played one way for a while with Labour riding to Rescue the poor Victims on benefits, we flip over to the opposing pole for a change and elect the Conservatives to Persecute them instead for a season.
Those on benefits, if playing the Victim role, use their power to extract benefits from the government, but in the process become dependent. So, whichever party is in power, nothing actually changes and no real help is provided to the poor Victims to enable them to gain independence.
To make real change we need to move to the Helper - Challenger - Vulnerable roles, with Governments taking the Helper and/or Challenger positions. This is not the same as either Rescuer or Persecutor roles, and looks for actual change, not the maintenance of some long-standing power game. From the Government's point of view, this would involve releasing some power, so those in poverty can take more control of their destiny. From the point of view of those in poverty, this would involve taking more responsibility for what they can achieve for themselves if given needed help.
Governments are keen on telling the poor to take more responsibility, but less keen on letting go of control. And those who are playing the Victim role are keen to ask for money, but are sometimes less keen to take on real responsibility. And so, the whole merry-go-round turns again, as we keep playing P-V-R instead.
When a person with real need asks for help (i.e. being Vulnerable - not playing Victim), is instead dealt with as a Victim by the state, this is a travesty and does untold long-term harm, creating dependency where none was sought!
How can you tell which set of relationships is being enacted?
- the Vulnerable person asks for help, but also takes responsibility for what they can do themselves
- the Helper offers relevant help when asked, but doesn't exert control or take away responsibility
- the Challenger is fair and doesn't 'put people down'.
International aid
The same applies to international aid. For too long we have played P-V-R with aid, where developing countries exert their power as Victims to extract aid, but are left dependent. The Western world either rides to the Rescue in order to retain control (with the price being aid money) or else Persecutes by exploiting the developing world unfairly while blaming them for mismanagement.
Are Western nations willing to accord the developing nations equal rights with themselves, or do we really want to retain the moral high ground and the control, with the price being international aid?
On the other hand, we often we criticise developing nations for 'playing victim', but will not let go of the control we demand as Rescuers or Persecutors. If we really want to help, we need to acknowledge and accept the loss of power for the Western world if we are able to help developing nations gain independence and autonomy.
So the question is: are we just wanting to endlessly play the P-V-R game, or do we actually want to respond when asked for help in order to effect real change?
I've written on a similar theme before in: 'Doing more than half the work'
No comments:
Post a Comment